User talk:Iorek85

Welcome!

Hello, Iorek85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 03:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict: external links

as per WP:EL, the reason for including the news sources is : 4. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) ...but I agree that the number of overall links should be cut. I got to it a few minutes after you on the talk page. Please come discuss on the talk page. Thanks for your help. -Preposterous 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy

I was just curious as to the nature of your edits, removing falloutboy.jpg from the Fall Out Boy page, and commenting it as reverting vandalism. Was this intentional? —Akrabbim^talk 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image for me showed up as the 'reminder' image (you're a homo) or, as a distorted picture. I know you're not a vandal, but I assumed someone has vandalised the image in its raw form without you realising. I didn't when I first reverted the image after someone else removed it.

P.S - I see it was edited to the 'homo' by Stepp-Wolf, then you changed it back. Iorek85 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's vandalism to the image, which you can also correct. It's actually a lot easier, as you can just click "rev" next to the image version you want to revert to. I just wasn't sure what you were doing at first. As for Stepp-Wolf, I hope it's not just Spartanpass under a new username. They're vandalism modi operandi seems similar. Anyway, thanks for the help in fighting anti-FOB vandalism. —Akrabbim^talk 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for that. I'll try using that next time instead of removing the image. Cheers.Iorek85 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DNA

Re:Your support for FP. There have been raised some concerns about the quality of the illustration - do you agree with those concerns? Jens Nielsen 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rainbow pattern, it doesn't particularily bother me. At the moment, I can't see anything wrong with it, the strands are easy to differentiate. But if it will make them clearer, maybe they should be changed. The rest of the concerns seem centered on the biomechanics of it, of which I have no idea. The edges around the smaller molecules could be thinner, perhaps, but otherwise, I still maintain my (non expert) support. Iorek85 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One way to include templates and not get categorized

Use "subst" to place the template into your page, then delete the categories. For example, I'll place the "disputed" template here with {{subst:disputed}}, save the page, then edit out the categories.

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

- Nunh-huh 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi lorek. I saw your comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfish and I was wondering if you knew how to make the in-line citations because I have no idea how to do so. QuizQuick 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

Please be a bit more careful with your ratings of the importance of articles. Among those you've tagged as "of low importance" include the founder of the Coles shopping empire and the act which legally declared Australia independent from the United Kingdom. I've reset the former to mid importance, but I've reset the latter to high importance. Rebecca 12:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you consider my articles 1982 Commonwealth Games and Anzac Square, Brisbane, to be of such low quality, value and importance. Also please explain the exact criterion you are using to rate the articles and why you consider yourself to be expert and important enough to be able to make such decisions. Figaro 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment. I think the problem is partly the terminology. "Stub", "Start" and "B-Class" are all rather unflattering terms, but these are the only tags that Iorek85 is at liberty to use, since the next level up is "Good article", which has its own nomination process. Iorek85, I think you're making a pretty good fist of a difficult job. Keep up the good work. Snottygobble 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terms that you mentioned, and also the term 'low importance', make one feel that it is not really worthwhile contributing to Wikipedia any longer. For instance, the term 'low importance' means that the article is considered not even good enough to rate a 'clean-up tag'. It is very disheartening when one has tried to do their best to make a good article for Wikipedia, for their work to be dismissed in such a fashion.

With regard to the 1982 Commonwealth Games, I have been responsible for the major part of the article (and its related articles), for which I have had to rely upon mostly from memory (I personally attended the Opening Ceremony of the 1982 Commonwealth Games) – which happened many years prior to both Wikipedia and the internet being established) — whereas, with regard to the 2000 Summer Olympics and the 2006 Commonwealth Games, these articles have had the benefit of Wikipedia, so that people have been able to imput information immediately as results etc. came to hand for both these Games. I am hoping to do further work on the 1982 Commonwealth Games article when (and if) I am able to find information about what sports were held on which days etc.

With regard to Anzac Square, Brisbane, the square holds the Shrine of Remembrance, and many statues commemorating Australia's war dead, so the term 'low importance' makes it appear that Australian war dead are deemed to be too unimportant for a Wikipedia article. I do not know what else I can do, or what else I can add to the article, to try to improve on the ratings which Iorek85 has given to the article.

Apart from the comments which I have made above, there is also a danger that the 'low importance' rating might also lead to the deletion of articles which are given such a rating. Figaro 08:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood the intended meaning of "importance" in this context. Which is understandable really, since no-one has really bothered to explain it properly. The terms originate with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, whose aim is "to work toward a set of articles suitable for release in print, CD, DVD, or some combination". Thus, "importance" in the context of WikiProject Australia really means "How important is it for this article to be included in a print, CD or DVD release of Australia-related related Wikipedia articles?" I would have to say that a good 90% of my contributions would have low importance by that criterion. For instance Alas Poor Yagan, one of my finest articles, was rated "low importance" by Iorek85, and I would have to agree with that assessment, because hardly anyone would care or even notice if it got left out of a distribution of Australia-related articles. My personal opinion is that Anzac Square, Brisbane is also of low importance by that criterion, although personally I would rate the 1982 Commonwealth Games as mid-importance.

Regarding your question about what else you can do to the article, I'm afraid there's really nothing you can do re: the importance scale, because the importance scale measures the significance of the subject of the article, rather than the article itself. Lake Barlee will have low importance no matter how wonderful I make the article, and Australia will have top importance even if it gets rewritten into a pile of utter garbage. My advice is to ignore peoples' (subjective) assessments of the importance of the topic, and focus on getting the quality up.

Snottygobble 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Snottygobble. I'm sorry, Figaro, if you think my assessments denigrate your work, but I honestly don't feel they do. They are in no danger of being deleted, nor does anyone think they are worthless. It's just in the grand scheme of things, Anzac Square is not as important as, say, the Constitution. Surely you can see that.--Iorek85 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, I see I am in esteemed company here, I have responded to some of your rail "low importance" ratings on the arts talk pages, and will pursue the issue later either in the article talk pages, and remain astonished at the level of POV in categorisation of articles.SatuSuro 13:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arts in satusuro speak means articles :) SatuSuro 09:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic

What was the previous pic on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict infobox? Tewfik^Talk 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 06:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't upload copyrighted pictures"

The dicussion on my page is about another picture, the picture you refer to is free in use. Thank you for your concern. ArmanJan 09:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, I meant Fair use, sorry. I know this source is allowed since I have uploaded images from this source for the past year now. ArmanJan 10:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Small note about warnings

Thanks for the reminder about substitutions. In terms of replacement, as illogical as it may seem, I believe the appropriate etiquette is to replace the template, though I forget where I read that. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert dispute International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi, There is an dispute in International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The dispute is over inclusion of the AIPAC reaction to a US House of Representatives Resolution expressing support for Israel. Various accusations are being thrown around by Comrade438 eg. im being accused of trying to paint a "zionist conspiracy".

Comrade438 has made few silly edits, and comments, along with what might be a threat. It degenerated to Comrade438 blocking the page without consulting WP:RPP, then reverting last changes. I am trying to alert other users who have edited the article to this dispute as I believe the detail should be included. Is it possible you can look and see if you agree that AIPAC's reaction should be included in the article? I dont believe its a content issue and is possible trolling. I previously highlighted the problems on wikipedian noticeboard [1] 82.29.227.171 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a nice compromise. However the AIPAC reaction to the vote is mentioned before the vote takes place in the article- what Comrade438 failed to understand is that its only possible to present AIPAC's reaction in terms of the vote having happened already. Aside from that I like that their reaction is now mentioned- it is relevant and noteworthy. I will also try to include details on Christian Right reaction- particularly John Hagee [2] as these things do have a bearing on the body politic in USA.

Someone did unprotected the page soon after he took that route I chose not to because it was not going to be resolved by a edit war. Thanks I am considering an account and thank you for your involvement. 82.29.227.171 23:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is it possible something can be done about Comrade438? He has removed the AIPAC detail again [3]. This was a 4/5th removal, without responding to the arguments for the inclusion of the text, after you came up with a 'compromise' inclusion, after another user supported its inclusion, and user Tewfik left word on his/her talkpage indicating WP:Point [4] but admittedly it was before I added further evidence for inclusion on the talk page:

"They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one." [5]

Like I said- its common knowledge, also note the article points out the pressure that is exercised on the admin via the 2 resolutions. I will prepare a small section detailing reaction of AIPAC and Christian Right Religious Lobby groups.

I noticed Comrade438 had removed the text again when I went looking to rearrange the USA section into subsections- its now entangled. Comrade438 isnt putting forth any arguments against, isn't discussing, isn't taking notice of others, and appears to just be interested in another edit war. Can you suggest a solution to this? Thanks 82.29.227.171 10:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Discussion Page on Lebanon Israel conflict

I did not vandalize...How dare you say I vandalize...I didn't adversely affect the page, are you some greater authority than me?? to say I'm not good enough to make it cleaner and eaiser to read..--Jerluvsthecubs 08:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

You recently contributed to Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 which has been nominated for Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. Vote for it now. Todd661 04:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airstrike on Taybe

Hello, I notice you removed this from the article- if you read the cnn report it says it actually breaks the "rules" of the cessation. Just a heads up. 82.29.227.171 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. I noticed your edit [6] that 07/31 strikes werent a violation of IDF's own cessation.

statement 07/30: "Israel has, of course, reserved the right to take action against targets preparing attacks against it. Only targets that are about to attack Israeli targets will be hit, and this will be the case until the full IDF inquiry is concluded."

"But the Israeli army said Monday's strikes near the Lebanese village of Tayba were meant to protect ground forces operating in the border area and were not aimed at specific targets." [7]

Thanks. 82.29.227.171 10:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi, you were listed as a proponant in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but have not yet made any statement in support, or oposition, of anything being discussed there. Would you like to write a statement? --Barberio 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes

And why it is not a war crimes in Lebanon? Killerman2 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 30

Hi, could you chime in on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 30 to try and avoid the Template:Unverifiable-external-links tag being deleted. --Barberio 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-Warring

There is currently what seems like a concerted effort to remove a paragraph from the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page, possibly including WP:Socks. I reverted once, perhaps you could revert as well. Tewfik^Talk 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for citation tips

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! For some reason, I've had a lot of trouble navigating the Wikipedia help areas, so instead whenever I need to do something new I just copy it from another article :) But the citation and reference stuff was a little complicated to figure out form context alone. Those pages will help a lot! Thanks!! --Jaysweet 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties table change in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I noticed you added "class wikitable" to the table in the casualties section. I'm not terribly good with tables, so I have no idea how to do this - could you possibly align the "entity" column to the left, as centred looks wrong, and allow the table to hover in the centre of that section? Thanks. --Iorek85 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) --Oblivious 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]